|
Post by epictetus on Oct 21, 2018 14:16:29 GMT 10
Trigger warning!! This is a long reflection. It's in the Philosophy section. Philosophy doesn't lend itself to one-liners or repartee. It's about free will. If we have free will, we are all responsible up to a point for what we do. If we don't have it, moral judgements disappear from court cases, sin disappears from religion, and freedom takes a knock in politics. So it's important. But how important is it for one who no longer participates in the economy and civil society? Not very, probably, but it's more important than much of the political circus we see on television and the religious nonsense we hear from so many preachers and prophets. Of course, you can look up Free Will in Wikipedia or wherever if you've a mind to, but this is my story. Read it or not as you wish. I write for my alter ego as well as any audience, but would be pleased to hear what others think about Free Will, if they have a view. .................................................................................. Dear friends Here in the forest we don't talk much about economics, politics and current affairs. There's nothing we can do about those things in the time we have left. It's not that they aren't important to those still engaged, but they are transient, and we have our minds focused on the interior and the transcendent. Of course, the sheer bounciness of the political and economic jumping castle draws us in at times, but the experience is essentially transitory and a waste of what time remains. So, in my quest to get to the heart of the things that count, I've been reading a bit on the question of Free Will (see references below). What is it and do we have it, and what inferences do we draw from the responses to these questions? I've been briefly reviewing (still reviewing), via Google, the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): something Leibniz got from Spinoza and was then taken up by Schopenhauer in his On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (1813) and further discussed in The World As Will And Representation (1828). To me, thinking about the PSR is essential to any discussion of whether we have or don't have 'free will', but the two authors I read recently - Sam Harris (who says we don't) and Alfred Mele (we do) don't mention it. It's there though, in a paraphrased, unacknowledged form (both books are quite short and aimed at the general reader - people like me who can't concentrate very long nowadays). If you've got this far I won't test your patience with the various arguments over the question of free will or the experiments that neuroscientists make much of in their quest to disprove any apparent non-material component of free will. Enough to say that the matter is in dispute, the findings of the experiments are clearly questionable, what 'free will' actually is has to be interrogated, and some claims are unresolvable, as they are unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Neuroscientists worship at the altar of the brain. They love the brain and wish to attribute anything that makes us human to observable processes within it, ascribing causal attributes as well as responsive ones to that amazing organ. Biologists are not so sure, and philosophers are frequently unwilling to concede the whole drama of human wisdom and foolishness to the workings of the cerebrum. Even Daniel Dennett, who buys into materialism and emergence theory, accepts that choices are not always determined by solely brain-based events. There seems to be three broad understandings of what 'free will' constitutes. Assuming a common understanding that free will is the choice between options where those options are known to the agent and there is no coercive or situationally limiting force acting on the agent that will affect his choice, three broad understandings are apparent: 1. Choices are entirely determined by causal events in the history of the agent up to the present. He is not free to escape these causes and the string of effects that flow from them; hence, the agent has no freedom of will. (Determinism) 2. A person's choices are god-given and, at the point of decision, are freely made regardless of the circumstances and past events that form the context in which they are made. (Libertarianism - not to be confused with the political theory) 3. Some freedom of choice is available to the agent when he is not being coerced or arbitrarily hindered, especially in significant matters where he has time to reflect, gather information, and so on, e.g. in major life matters - whom to marry, where to buy a house, whether to apply for that job, etc. Even so, unconscious and limiting factors, e.g. emotion, intuition, 'sexual chemistry', may inhibit freedom in these cases or even outweigh conscious choice based on consideration of the alternatives. (Compatibilism) The question I began my reading with, however, was not really "Is there such a thing as free will?", but "if there isn't, as in determinism backed by the PSR, are we worse off for it?" Sam Harris, a neuroscientist with, generally, a broader vision than his peers seem to have, says there isn't any free will and we are no worse off for it. In fact, he says that saying good bye to the belief in free will is liberating and enables us to be more compassionate to those who've made wrong decisions in life. Alfred Mele, a philosopher and head of an institute at Florida University that studies free will questions exclusively, says we do have it, and he points to studies showing that people who become convinced that free will does not exist are more likely to behave badly. Since reading Schopenhauer in the late 80s on this matter (though it's not a major thread in his magnum opus), I've suspected that in many life matters, both significant and trivial, we are simply acting from a chain of cause and effect events that go back to an almost (?) infinite past and that, through the consequences, have brought us to the point that we are now and will determine the next move we make. For example, my wife and I met in the Library of the Ecole Superieure de Pedagogie [Secondary Teachers' College] in Vientiane, Laos in 1969. I was 25; she was 20. How on earth would one predict that two people from such distant birthplaces and life histories would not only meet, but marry? Looking back to my own birth, upbringing, education, work experience, etc, however, I can see a logical chain of events and enabling circumstances that would produce this outcome. Each significant decision along the way contributed to further decisions that affected the outcome. But what about the counter-factuals? What if I'd not met people who influenced me? What if I'd won different jobs, in different cities? What about the 'sliding door' moments? These can't be predicted, nor fitted in to a logical and predictable chain of causes and effects. Well, of course, they are all counter-factuals after all and didn't happen, so the chain of events is not broken and my determining choices not effected. And, had they occurred, my life would have taken a different course, but my choices would have remained determined. Or so goes the determinist position buttressed by the PSR. It appears that for 30 years I've lived with the cognitive dissonance that there is no significant freedom of will, but that it's best to live and act and make judgements as though there were. But now I'm not sure about the dependent clause in that sentence. Gazing at my fellow-humans in a shopping centre recently, and reflecting on how each one of us draws on the same Consciousness that underpins all conscious beings, it also struck me that our very dependence on this common consciousness in some way equalises our moral responsibility for doing right or wrong. We may be puppets who can pull a bit on our strings, but we are puppets nonetheless and, therefore, we must be forgiving or at least understanding of our fellow human's failings. This is deductive knowledge/gnosis and, in turn, the understanding logically proceeds to compassion/agape. It was this insight that led Sam Harris to see that rejection of the notion of free will is in fact liberating. One is freed from making moral judgements, often based on religious or cultural formation, and can then work out what to do with a harmful person that excludes retribution on moral grounds, but emphasises containment and, where necessary, punishment of a kind that will discourage similar harmful behaviours in others. However, this is not to regard all behaviours as simply robotic and equivalent in moral value. One who enjoys murdering small children is not the moral equivalent of one who steals hubcaps, or another who takes home office ballpoints. Even without a belief in God or an Underpinning Consciousness, there is among people everywhere a moral code, albeit different in various ways in different cultures. A sense of moral value is universal and intuitive and appears to pre-date formal religious codes. So Hitler is not off the hook for his moral monstrosities, but may not be in Hell given the conditions and causes that made him the deluded maniac that he turned out to be. (Where do you put Hitler in the Afterlife if there is no Hell?) We judge people as having done the right or wrong thing, and are often quite offended when someone has done something we regard as morally repugnant, but if their actions are largely or fully consequent upon previous events of which they may be unaware or interpret differently from us, how much blame can be placed on them? There is a political divide on this question, too. People of the Left, either knowingly or unconsciously, tend to minimise freedom of the will and maximise events and conditions in a person's life that mitigate any negligent or anti-social behaviour that person exhibits. Hence they speak of 'blaming the victim' and similar cliches. People on the Right, however, robustly endorse free will and hold individuals accountable for any harm they've done, to themselves or others, or anything praiseworthy. Both may be right, the Left in acknowledging the determining origins of behaviours, and the Right in pointing out the social consequences of a blame-avoiding approach to social leadership, law enforcement and the judiciary. Sam Harris, Free Will, 2012 Alfred Mele, Free: Why Science Hasn't Disproved Free Will, 2014 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Fourfold_Root_of_the_Principle_of_Sufficient_Reasonwww.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_Principle_of_Sufficient_Reason_PSR_invalidated_by_QM_uncertainty_Goedel_incompleteness_and_objective_randomness_in_Nature_and_mathematics
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Oct 21, 2018 20:50:10 GMT 10
If you understand Natural Selection I don't see how you can propound your viewpoints.
|
|
|
Post by forge on Oct 22, 2018 4:28:05 GMT 10
Good Morning to YOU ALL!! Yes, Epic! WE all have a Free Will of…some sort or another. Forge, as most people, has his own Free Will ( and HE is unanimous with himself and with the Seniors of Thirroul!) . The sharing/imposing of Free Will it is NOT very popular during Breakfast Time at Kiama Macca. WE were told to Hop on our motorized Wheelchairs and “Rake Off”!! I plan to offer to the Seniors of Kiama/Thirroul the following article “harvested” from the Uncle Google House. Before I do it, I would appreciate if you, Epic, could find the time to read it and comment on it. You are a very knowledgeable on all matters relating to : Spirituality, Religion, Israel & Egypt Islamic Pre-history and other related fields of Knowledge. There is NO urgency, when and IF you will find the time. Possibly BEFORE the 23th. of next January 2019. Thank YOU, Epic, your willingness to share your knowledge is VERY much appreciated! ++++
Freewill and Determinism Saul McLeod, published 2013 ________________________________________ The determinist approach proposes that all behavior is caused by preceding factors and is thus predictable. The causal laws of determinism form the basis of science. Free will is the idea that we are able to have some choice in how we act and assumes that we are free to choose our behavior, in other words we are self determined. For example, people can make a free choice as to whether to commit a crime or not (unless they are a child or they are insane). This does not mean that behavior is random, but we are free from the causal influences of past events. According to freewill a person is responsible for their own actions. ________________________________________ Determinism Some approaches in psychology see the source of determinism as being outside the individual, a position known as environmental determinism. For example, Bandura (1961) showed that children with violent parents will in turn become violent parents through observation and imitation. Others see it from coming inside i.e., in the form of unconscious motivation or genetic determinism – biological determinism. E.g., high IQ has been related to the IGF2R gene (Chorney et al., 1998). Behaviorists are strong believers in determinism. Their most forthright and articulate spokesman has been B. F. Skinner. Concepts like “free will” and “motivation” are dismissed as illusions that disguise the real causes of human behavior. For Skinner (1971) these causes lay in the environment – more specifically in physical and psychological reinforcers and punishments. It is only because we are not aware of the environmental causes of our own behavior or other people’s that we are tricked into believing in our ability to choose. In Skinner’s scheme of things the person who commits a crime has no real choice. (S)he is propelled in this direction by environmental circumstances and a personal history, which makes breaking the law natural and inevitable. For the law-abiding, an accumulation of reinforcers has the opposite effect. Having been rewarded for following rules in the past the individual does so in the future. There is no moral evaluation or even mental calculation involved. All behavior is under stimulus control. The other main supporters of determinism are those who adopt a biological perspective. However for them it is internal, not external, forces that are the determining factor. According to sociobiology evolution governs the behavior of a species and genetic inheritance that of each individual within it. For example Bowlby (1969) states a child has an innate (i.e. inborn) need to attach to one main attachment figure (i.e. monotropy).++Personality traits like extraversion or neuroticism, and the behavior associated with them, are triggered by neurological and hormonal processes within the body. There is no need for the concept of an autonomous human being. Ultimately this view sees us as no more than biological machines and even consciousness itself is interpreted as a level of arousal in the nervous system. However, a problem with determinism is that it is inconsistent with society's ideas of responsibility and self control that form the basis of our moral and legal obligations. An additional limitation concerns the facts that psychologists cannot predict a person's behavior with 100% accuracy due to the complex interaction of variables which can influence behavior. ________________________________________ Freewill One of the main assumptions of the humanistic approach is that humans have free will; not all behavior is determined. Personal agency is the humanistic term for the exercise of free will. Personal agency refers to the choices we make in life, the paths we go down and their consequences. For humanistic psychologists such as Maslow (1943) and Rogers (1951) freedom is not only possible but also necessary if we are to become fully functional human beings. Both see self-actualisation as a unique human need and form of motivation setting us apart from all other species. There is thus a line to be drawn between the natural and the social sciences. To take a simple example, when two chemicals react there is no sense in imagining that they could behave in any other way than the way they do. However when two people come together they could agree, fall out, come to a compromise, start a fight and so on. The permutations are endless and in order to understand their behavior we would need to understand what each party to the relationship chooses to do. Cognitive psychologists are also inclined to attribute importance to free will, and adopt a soft determinism view. However whereas humanists are especially interested in our choice of ends (how each of us sees the road to self actualization) cognitive psychologists are more inclined to focus on the choice of means. In other words for them it is the rational processing of information which goes into the making of a decision which is their main interest. Conscious reflection on our own behavior is seen as the best way of achieving goals and learning from mistakes. Calculation, strategy, organization etc are interpreted as key elements – not only in governing the choices that we make but also in helping us make the “right” choices in particular situations. Mental illnesses appear to undermine the concept of freewill. For example, individuals with OCD lose control of their thoughts and actions and people with depression lose control over their emotions. Ranged against the deterministic psychologies of those who believe that what “is” is inevitable are therefore those who believe that human beings have the ability to control their own destinies. However there is also an intermediate position that goes back to the psychoanalytic psychology of Sigmund Freud. At first sight Freud seems to be a supporter of determinism in that he argued that our actions and our thoughts are controlled by the unconscious. However the very goal of therapy was to help the patient overcome that force. Indeed without the belief that people can change therapy itself makes no sense. This insight has been taken up by several neo-Freudians. One of the most influential has been Erich Fromm (1941). In “Fear of Freedom” he argues that all of us have the potential to control our own lives but that many of us are too afraid to do so. As a result we give up our freedom and allow our lives to be governed by circumstance, other people, political ideology or irrational feelings. However determinism is not inevitable and in the very choice we all have to do good or evil Fromm sees the essence of human freedom. ________________________________________ Summary Psychologists who take the free will view suggest that determinism removes freedom and dignity, and devalues human behavior. By creating general laws of behavior, deterministic psychology underestimates the uniqueness of human beings and their freedom to choose their own destiny. There are important implications for taking either side in this debate. Deterministic explanations for behavior reduce individual responsibility. A person arrested for a violent attack for example might plead that they were not responsible for their behavior – it was due to their upbringing, a bang on the head they received earlier in life, recent relationship stresses, or a psychiatric problem. In other words, their behavior was determined. The deterministic approach also has important implications for psychology as a science. Scientists are interested in discovering laws which can then be used to predict events. This is very easy to see in physics, chemistry and biology. As a science, psychology attempts the same thing – to develop laws, but this time to predict behavior If we argue against determinism, we are in effect rejecting the scientific approach to explaining behavior Clearly, a pure deterministic or free will approach does not seem appropriate when studying human behavior Most psychologists use the concept of free will to express the idea that behavior is not a passive reaction to forces, but that individuals actively respond to internal and external forces. The term soft determinism is often used to describe this position, whereby people do have a choice, but their behavior is always subject to some form of biological or environmental pressure. References Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross,S.A (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582 Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books. Chorney, M. J., Chorney, K., Seese, N., Owen, M. J., Daniels, J., McGuffin, P., ... & Plomin, R. (1998). A quantitative trait locus associated with cognitive ability in children. Psychological Science, 9(3), 159-166. Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from freedom. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96. Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and Theory. London: Constable. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group. ________________________________________ How to reference this article: McLeod, S. A. (2013). Freewill and determinism in psychology. Retrieved from ttps://www.simplypsychology.org/freewill
+++++ THANKS, AGAIN, from Forge!! YOURS was a GREAT Post!!
|
|
|
Post by tute on Oct 22, 2018 7:20:16 GMT 10
If you understand Natural Selection I don't see how you can propound your viewpoints. ........................................................................................................................................
Oh dear! you miss the point Greg; if you understand the concept of free will first, then and only then, may you comprehend those fellows that need to propound the theories of natural selection.
Science at this juncture of the evolutionary process is turning up some remarkable results on the biology front..... they also recognize they are only beginning to scrape the face of it. Not being at all like those extra intelligent sheep that believe the science of AGW is settled.
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Oct 22, 2018 8:38:13 GMT 10
TRIGGER WARNING: NSFSW (not safe for superstitious worshippers) We are just a species called Homo Sapiens. If you want to determine if we have free will you must first determine if any other species has free will. As we have evolved just like all other species then you cannot question your actions as tho they are something seperate from all other of life's actions. Epic is propounding a premise that anthromorpism is paramount (meaning only humans are important) and that deep questions (heheee) can only be explained in the light of homo sapien behaviour. NB: note that Epic raises more questions than he answers in his article! The reason Epic can't answer any of the points he raises shows that his fundamental premise is wrong. However, if you understand Natural Selection then the whole of Epic's article is explanatory without a single mystery or hidden corner left. Dear Tute, please don't give me your pseudo-quasi-misinformed religious ideas on Science (capital S) because you have no answers either. The best you've got is the de-bunked theory of Intelligent Design. Your premise is that there is a Universal Intelligence (conscious) that's gunna, or can, or will, on the unknown day of ressurection reveal all and confound the wisdom of the wise. The simple facts are: neither you nor Epic can provide an account of life or the cosmos that does not rely on a whole host of mysterious ephemeral spirits. And your appalling lack of understanding means you fill the vacant gaps in your theories with non material values like the 'universal consciousness'. Dear God, Angels and Saints of Heaven, protect me from such ignorance
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Oct 22, 2018 8:39:44 GMT 10
Oh dear, DEARY...US!! YOU miss/missed the point tute; if you understand the concept of free will first, then and only then, may you comprehend those that understand the theories of natural selection. If you have nothing better/more interesting to do...read Epic and Forge posts!! WE do NOT have to understand/agree with messages in/on the posts!! JUST say that YOU do agree,that is ALL!! Epic & Pedro will pretend to be happy and....WE ALL can keep posting KILOMETRIC posts...which are NOT (neceassarily) meant to mean Some & Things!! Be a GOOD Boy, Tute!! IF you read or do NOT read the posts....makes NO difference to YOU or Any or Body or Else!! Pedro
PS. I have understood SOO many concepts!! My Time capsuleS are full of Understood Conceptual...Concepts!!
|
|
|
Post by qjumper on Oct 22, 2018 15:06:04 GMT 10
Err "free will" has never phased me 'cause it is just two words with Dictionary defined meanings UNTIL someone puts their own spin on these two words together.
Mostly I have seen it used by God Botherers and it is their "cop-out" as to why their God did not take control of a bad situation.
Their knowing-all controlling-all God allows someone to have "free will" and thereby the shit hits the fan. So they don't blame God, instead they blame "free will"= a "God-given right".
Does "free will" exist?
The answer is "free will" cannot exist if there is no God to gift it.
I say, for me, there is no evidence of "free will" until I find evidence of a caring God to gift it.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Oct 23, 2018 5:25:04 GMT 10
Blast!! Pedro will HAVE to start ALL over...AGAIN!! Pedro WILL FREELY do what is UNpleasant ..IF he can NOT avoid doing IT/THEM!! I do: REALLY like PHILOSOPHICAL & THEOLOGICAL dissertations. They WILL NEVER end...most of them started 3967 years ago and...They are splattered RIGHT now on books, Forums, Walls! Wish to Epic, Qjumper, Pedro that: MY & YOUR GODS will lead US to a Perennial Use-full-less friendly discussions!! AMEN !!
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Oct 23, 2018 20:40:42 GMT 10
Thanks guys. Especially Col, who simply stated his belief and gave reasons for it. I think he's saying that, if there's a God then God, and only God, can enable the contravention of cause and effect laws to enable one to step outside them and make a magically free decision. If there isn't any God then one simply has to abide by these laws and their consequences. Or so the determinist theory goes.
Not sure what Greg's referring to in evolution. Is it the randomness of mutations?
Greg's right that we are just one lot of beings in a cosmos of beings. In terms of consciousness and its applications, however, we are at the top of the chain, as far as we know. Others might be better at adaptation, e.g. salamanders, cockroaches, or physical attainments, but the transformation of perception into language has given human beings a massive advantage in the consciousness and communication stakes, despite the evidence of social media (Facebook, Twitter) that many of us are both dimwitted and proud of it.
Forge, I did read the extract you posted and found it helpful. A couple of things stood out, but it was a couple of days ago and I don't feel like re-reading it now (my eyes aren't great at night). I did note Bowlby's comment, however, supporting determinism, and it made me think of emergence theory. If humans are simply units of matter from which consciousness has emerged as an epiphenomenon, then the will is nothing more than a by-product of matter, and to my understanding, material products don't have a 'will' that transcends their essentially unfree, determined nature. So what I've said in the previous paragraph about the superiority of the human consciousness would make no sense.
If consciousness has simply emerged from matter it is only 'consciousness' in an evolved but not transcendent form. If, however, human consciousness is drawn from a universal field of consciousness and is, therefore, more than just the workings of the brain, then it is something 'higher' than or at least qualitatively different from the manifested consciousness that can be observed and measured in the activities of the brain. Of course, to accept this does not imply that one accepts a supreme being in the personal and relational form that the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) conceive and profess, and acceptance of a universal field of consciousness does not entail belief in free will (I think).
Let's make one thing clear though. I, Epictetus, no longer advocate any spiritual or non-spiritual foundational belief. In the forest we don't stand on soap boxes. All things are possible except logical impossibilities and empirical propositions that are sufficiently high on the probability calculus that to deny them would be sheer stupidity. One can throw a proposition, e.g. that one has/has not free will, into the ring hoping to find out what others think. It doesn't mean one is defending an ideological stockade. One can have a view, but that view might change sooner or later, especially if we are open to the diverse views of others and, therefore, can avoid confirmation bias.
Cheers Epic
|
|
|
Post by forge on Oct 24, 2018 5:24:58 GMT 10
Thank YOU Epic!! Greatly appreciated your...appreciation of appreciating what Forge wrote!! I do hope that you, Epic, do realize that: WHAT WE wrote or WE did NOT write...would/will NOT make ANY difference to ANYTHING of ANY importance!! Clever persons ( NOT Forge!) have written/discussed THOSE PROBLEMS for 3978 years...and ALL of them wasted their time...but gave THEM the illusion of writing/discussing EXTREMELY important SOME & THING!! Forge has more important things to do...to waste away HIS time! Looking at HOW other Seniors waste their time...Forge is NOT sillier than other Seniors!! Epic, do NOT take THIS silly post as a criticism of YOUR pastimes! CIAO!!!
|
|
|
Post by cster on Oct 24, 2018 16:59:15 GMT 10
I suppose if we had free will we would have been born outside the obvious consequence of parental activities. For I know of no one that has sufficient will to be born another way. We are by consequence a by product of sex for the sake of pleasure. Seldom have people coupled up for only a child as an outcome pryor to the artificial insemination era.
Outside of that we usurp the word will to cover out decisions, whether wilful or not. We do use history for decisions even on the fly. Even Instinct.
Free? perhaps not, optional will perhaps. We are rather good at choosing an option.
Also Sam Harris say's we are free to be more compassionate? Why would we? after all if they are behaving that way by design from their chemical make up it would be more prudent to distance yourself from them. Would it not?
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Oct 25, 2018 5:21:45 GMT 10
If (I wrote IF!!) we ALL had FREE WILL...we would/will do what WE like...regardless of OTHERS Free Will!! Pedro is NOT surprised that Free Will has been DISCUSSED/ARGUED for 3976 years and....NO agreements (so far) by/within the ORDES of Free Willers!! Going to Thirroul to claim MY FREE WILLED Macchiato!!
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Oct 25, 2018 12:05:12 GMT 10
Not sure what Greg's referring to in evolution. Is it the randomness of mutations? No, it's nothing to do with the randomness of mutations generally speaking. Greg's right that we are just one lot of beings in a cosmos of beings. In terms of consciousness and its applications, however, we are at the top of the chain, as far as we know. Others might be better at adaptation, e.g. salamanders, cockroaches, or physical attainments, but the transformation of perception into language has given human beings a massive advantage in the consciousness and communication stakes Dear friends Here in the forest we don't talk much about economics, politics and current affairs. There's nothing we can do about those things in the time we have left. It's not that they aren't important to those still engaged, but they are transient, and we have our minds focused on the interior and the transcendent. Of course, the sheer bounciness of the political and economic jumping castle draws us in at times, but the experience is essentially transitory and a waste of what time remains. So, in my quest to get to the heart of the things that count ..... If you have your mind focussed on the interior and the transcendent, and you are on a quest to get to the heart of things because that's what counts ... then Natural Selection renders moribund your whole post ... your presumption that All of it is just plain wrong ... demonstrably wrong! We are not at the top of the chain .. The chain has no top, no bottom ... it's cyclical, it's called an eco-system driven by a phenomena that's been going on for 4.5 billion years ... called the carbon cycle driven by cooling plate tectonics. We are just one link in the chain, and of no particular importance over any other link. This is demonstrably proven. How can you not know this? How can you make the statement 'We are at the top of the chain'? You praise our ability to communicate ... and you nod with a knowing smile all round because you know no other species has our level of communication. If you think our ability to communicate better than all other species has benefited our eco-system far and above all the other species' contributions, then you're pissing in the wind. If the ability to communicate was the BEST beneficial selection over all others then other species would invest in it too. Spiders would be growing brains rather than laying sheer bulk of eggs. But believe it or not, spiders shun intelligence, because they believe that to ensure the survival of their species they'd just be wasting their time on growing a brain, Time that could be far better spent just laying millions of eggs. But there you see, Spiders are not self-aggrandiasing and selfish, they do not think the Sun shines outta their arse. Nor are they compassionate on an individual basis ... Mum eats the husband during intercourse, he having conveniently jumped into her mouth. He has an enormous penis, if he was a man it would be 10-20 metres long. He keeps it rolled up on his back when not in use. He unrolls it like a fire hose, plugs it in, and then jumps into his wife's opening jaws .. all the time she's snacking on him, he's pumping sperm into her. Mum will eat the kids if any are hanging round after hatching. They're legitimate snacks. So you see Spiders have a very lax moral code, in fact they don't have one at all. And yet they SURVIVE, better than us. Because regardless of their appalling loose morals, they're system of eating each other as soon as the use-by-date is up is an incredibly efficient use of scarce resources. They live for the benefit of their species and not the individual. And guess what, this counts for more than the loss of moral judgements in courts (whatever that is) .. even the loss of sin in religion (snigger) .. and the freedom of their politics is the rule-of-might. What you really need to understand is that from a Natural Selection Point OF View Spiders are more successful on the rungs of the Ladder of Life than we are, our brains just don't count when it comes to out competing spiders. Think about it . They are better at survival ... And that's ALL that counts for Natural Selection to continue the life cycle of this planet. Because that's all that IMPACTS on a species. Address that and the survival of the species is ensured, regardless if the outcome is dog eat dog, or the lamb shares it luncheon with the Lion. There are no morals, no justice, in Natural Selection, unless justice is beneficial to the species, but if in-justice is beneficial then it too will be selected for. The reason I mention this is because Natural Selection can also explain all the points you pontificate over in your opening post. Your 'reasonings' on free will raise more questions than they answer. ergo: something is wrong. If I was you I would hurry down to the bookstore and get a few books on How Natural Selection works, that even tho it is purposeless and holds no one value high (unless it is beneficial), that it has no pre-vision, that it has no idea of the future any more than you or me .. it can still account for consciousness, morals, and every thing sublime you associate with Man. It even takes the time to account for all the other species too, quite selflessly. The reason I recommend these books is because you have told me you are on a quest for the truth, or rather 'to get to the heart of things that count ' ... and what could that be but the truth. .
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Oct 25, 2018 14:22:21 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Oct 26, 2018 4:49:32 GMT 10
Good Morning Sediba! Pedro does NOT criticize or ridicule OTHER people pastimes. WE ALL have our OWN pastimes which are very interesting, useful and very satisfying to OUR intellectual capacities or lack of them. Sediba, in your opinion, what is that "pushes/entices" people on the production of NE ( Never Ending) Spiritual Posts...overflowing with Nonsense? The Nonsense was originally created MANY thousands of years ago. Many millions of people (during many thousands of years!) have caused Suffering and Death to OTHER people Before/During/After the many discussions/dissertations. WHY do THEY do IT? Pedro PS. Sediba, this post is NOT a "request/order" that YOU MUST answer! Pedro CAN live an happy life without your answer and YOU Sediba CAN live an happy life...without commenting on Pedro posts....THEY are NOT sillier or...LESS silly than Any & Body & Else posts!!
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Oct 26, 2018 17:14:08 GMT 10
Good Morning Sediba! Sediba, in your opinion, what is that "pushes/entices" people on the production of NE ( Never Ending) Spiritual Posts...overflowing with Nonsense? The Nonsense was originally created MANY thousands of years ago. WHY do THEY do IT? Pedro In my opinion every homo sapiens is burdened with curiousity .. genetically driven. We all, every single one of us, has a burning desire to understand. But as we age it becomes extremely difficult to view the world from a new mind-set, to change our mindset (there is a fear here as well) ... immature, we were as rubber, adaptable to change and new ideas. But old, we set like concrete. We've left our run too late. But rightly or wrongly we will never admit to this. We defend our right to understand regardless of our understanding. And as every ol pharts ideas are unique to the ol phart, our forum is a Tower of Babel.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Oct 27, 2018 5:04:43 GMT 10
Thanks, Sediba! ++But old, we set like concrete. We've left our run too late.++ This is the time to have a LOVED partner: intelligent, small difference of age, with shared REAL INTERESTS, similar educations & similar amount of ....money! NOT EASY to find a REAL Partner!
|
|
|
Post by tute on Oct 27, 2018 6:04:27 GMT 10
Yeah, yeah, yeah...... and the 'Fossil of the day' award goes to........ Sediba.......
Natural Selection, my arse..... next time you are having coffee with Col ask him if he has ever seen his pet rock with a hard on.
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Oct 27, 2018 7:43:17 GMT 10
This is the time to have a LOVED partner: intelligent, small difference of age, with shared REAL INTERESTS, similar educations & similar amount of ....money! No Pali, not easy to find. And death will intervene leaving one partner alone. Understanding is also a solace
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Oct 27, 2018 16:05:40 GMT 10
Thanks Greg (Sediba) for the explanation about Natural Selection. And for the divertissement about spiders and their wicked and self-destructive ways. Twenty foot penises, rolled up on their backs. Reminds me of Sophocles' assertion that having a penis is "like being chained to a madman" - and what a madman! Well, that just goes to show that, in the penis length/self-destructiveness/sacrifice for the species stakes, arachnids have it all over hominids, especially homo sapiens. Well, I'd already acknowledged the superiority over humans of other species in my short reference (quoted in your post) to cockroaches' and salamanders' survival capacities. Just a couple of simple examples that one could add to greatly. I'm happy with the Great Circle of Being, or even Indra's Net of Being; however, I'm not aware of any cockroaches, salamanders, spiders or even Bonobos (98.4% of their genetic make-up shared with humans) who've split the atom or written War and Peace.
In terms of survival ability humans are pretty vulnerable, aren't they? It's what goes on inside their heads that gives them some advantage (when it's not endangering everyone). And what goes on inside the brain either generates or transmits consciousness. And it's the connection between consciousness and freedom of will that we started out discussing, not the survival ability of our species or any other. If the brain, a physical organ, produces consciousness, then how is this product free to make significant decisions and choices? And if it transmits Consciousness (upper case) then how does it individualise it to the point that one becomes a free agent? Now, you may wish to say that this is all tosh - and maybe it is, I don't care - but it's really not enough to say that and advise me (and those who ask themselves the same questions) to run down to the bookstore and buy up stuff on Natural Selection or whatever subject you think is relevant. If you want to enlighten me, make a contribution to the topic - or don't if you don't want to, but simply being told I'm (we're) barking up the wrong tree won't persuade me; I need to hear the arguments either for or against free will and/or the relevance of consciousness to it. Do we have it or not? In what form and from what origins? If it is determined, how can the notion of 'sin' or accountability be justified? How can courts make judgements according to whether someone was responsible for their actions when those actions were effectively programmed by a long chain of cause and effect? If we can make choices and decisions freely where does that freedom come from? And why draw my/our attention to a Creationist website? What relevance does that have?
|
|
|
Post by qjumper on Oct 27, 2018 18:04:30 GMT 10
Us homo saps seem to be addicted to labeling everything.
And that is the major prob.
Labeling is the first step to: non-acceptance. We can't love it, hate it, or despise it, if we do not have a name for it.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Oct 28, 2018 5:18:44 GMT 10
++ Author++ Many/most posts are...well they are...SOME & Things! The content/meaning of a 50 lines post could (should?)be concentrated on/in 3 lines: Your post was deeply meaningful and worth re-re-reading 6 times. AFTER reading your posts I have learnt 12 new things, worth learning and storing in MY Time Skips for MY Posteriors. There should BE more people that can produce & spread SO much knowledge!++
By visiting Senior Forums there are ALWAYS ample/endless opportunities to learn so much! Thanks to all...including Padre Pedro!!
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Oct 28, 2018 5:23:14 GMT 10
Qjumper....HERE it is: I do love,like and, sometimes, I do hate/ate !!
|
|
|
Post by tute on Oct 28, 2018 6:09:16 GMT 10
If you understand Natural Selection I don't see how you can propound your viewpoints. ........................................................................................................................................
Oh dear! you miss the point Greg; if you understand the concept of free will first, then and only then, may you comprehend those fellows that need to propound the theories of natural selection.
Science at this juncture of the evolutionary process is turning up some remarkable results on the biology front..... they also recognize they are only beginning to scrape the face of it. Not being at all like those extra intelligent sheep that believe the science of AGW is settled. ...........................................................................................................................................................
Gents....read my trivial dribble in the above post again …. If you are unsure where it fits your purpose then remove the reference to Sediba’s name and try again.
Free will means you are free to choose….and natural selection also means free to choose from all assumptions, all thesis’s, premise’s, or/and any other associated BS….
You are/were born free….. its what happens next that tends to go a trifle awry. Examples of which need no explanation here. But if so required, a good start would be to consult Pedro and his 3792 years of ..it
However, if you have been lucky enough since taking your first breath…. Ensuing wisdom (education) should have developed to the extent whereby one can finally decipher, almost without doubt, who is who and wot is wot. The freedom that transpires from that education can lead to only one conclusion….. … One needed a consciousness to arrive at the said conclusion and along with that consciousness was the inbuilt will to not only survive, but to create a purpose for that survival.….
Ironically the best survival best depends on a collective (universal) consciousness. For this reason the ONE becomes many….. and hence the fun begins…. (See Pedro again) Labels to the side …. If you are still unsure as to your Will, and whether that will be free or not…. there is only ONE person you can ask.
*Footnote* Implied subjective reading: Rather then that illiterate junky Darwinian tripe as recommended elsewhere; suggested reading for the not so wakeful would be …. 'any metaphysical item that has links to quantum theory’. The Advaita Vedanta would be a good start.
Contrary to most thought herein... and here out; the Bible is not much good for enlightenment or future outlook/guidance… unless you are well versed in metaphors or analogies. ( Blowflies never got the gist of it)
Further…. in any interim that may develop along the way, or on ones quest for the obvious…. spiders can do what spiders were designed for... to get phucked…. Verbatim veritas.
|
|
|
Post by qjumper on Oct 28, 2018 9:50:28 GMT 10
Hello young Tute, methinks you missed a minor point.
'tickularly in this modern world we have to accept without question many facts,'cause we have not got the time or the opportunity to research them all and conduct our own experiments. Take for example, foods, and likely foods with nasty side effects, or is sea water blue or reflecting blue, what is electricity really like.
Most peeps accept what they are told is true unless they do not like the consequences of that truth. Sometimes like touching wet paint it is just idle curiosity that drives our doubt.
At some point in our lives EVERYONE has doubted the validity of religious texts and EVERYONE has realised the writers of those texts had manipulative intent. If the reader of the texts is happy with the intent, then they do not question it and just add it to the pile of info that they will accept without question.
Hence the "battle of wisdom" begins from an early age - the child is told; "Do not touch it is hot." and the child touches it thereby learning the hard-way the need to accept good advice.
As we get more experienced we have to separate "old wives tales" from "true facts" and the list goes on.
But Tute we do have to accept "truths of varying truthness" because we just do not have the time to do our own testing and analysis.
|
|
|
Post by cster on Oct 28, 2018 18:56:37 GMT 10
I do love a wet paint sign, for it gives one the opportunity to guestimate just how far into the Inurement the paint is when we spy it. Had sufficient data been supplied with the simple wet paint sign, like date and time and expected surface hardening time. Then most would not touch the paint for they were satisfied with the information given. But if one has to use a couple more of his or her five senses to determine the surface dryness then so be it. Touch gives a very definable additional data set. Even perhaps the ultimate answer.
Epic if we have free will then perhaps we don't have free approval to use it. Society derives a need for sameness for so many behaviours that we would be at odds with our society if we exercised free will without barriers. Being raised on my mothers jug cord and my fathers belt, it may have been free will that they were containing. Then again perhaps not.
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Oct 28, 2018 19:32:33 GMT 10
Now, you may wish to say that this is all tosh - and maybe it is, I don't care - but it's really not enough to say that and advise me (and those who ask themselves the same questions) to run down to the bookstore and buy up stuff on Natural Selection or whatever subject you think is relevant. If you want to enlighten me, make a contribution to the topic - I need to hear the arguments either for or against free will and/or the relevance of consciousness to it. Do we have it or not? Dear Angels and little Saints ... ?? I'm trying to say that all our reactions and responses are driven by Natural Selection. That means we don't have free will and we don't have no-free will. We have a third thing which is neither of the above. We are biological dynamic beings and operating in an eco-system, we are just a part of this system. Where we affect the operation and the operation affects us. Just a cog. We are not driven to act rigidly and to a pattern, nor blossom uncontrollably and uncertainly. There is no past and no future. There is only the present, we're in it, no choice. Does a bee have free will? A Leopard? Free-will is nonsense, just as a state of grace is nonsense. You have to premise that it exists before you can decide if you have it. Answer this, if you haven't got it, where is it? It's a ludicrous concept. Haven't you noticed, that even in your opening post you were powerless to define it. There is no free-will, no no-free-will .. there is just the dynamic caprice of Nature. Free-will is a theist proposal. A theist belief.
|
|
|
Post by tute on Oct 29, 2018 4:04:34 GMT 10
Dear Angels and little Saints ... ?? I'm trying to say that all our reactions and responses are driven by Natural Selection. That means we don't have free will and we don't have no-free will. We have a third thing which is neither of the above. We are biological dynamic beings and operating in an eco-system, we are just a part of this system. Where we affect the operation and the operation affects us. Just a cog. We are not driven to act rigidly and to a pattern, nor blossom uncontrollably and uncertainly. There is no past and no future. There is only the present, we're in it, no choice. Does a bee have free will? A Leopard? Free-will is nonsense, just as a state of grace is nonsense. You have to premise that it exists before you can decide if you have it. Answer this, if you haven't got it, where is it? It's a ludicrous concept. Haven't you noticed, that even in your opening post you were powerless to define it. There is no free-will, no no-free-will .. there is just the dynamic caprice of Nature. Free-will is a theist proposal. A theist belief. .................................................................................................
STREWTH.....No past, no future, only a present ?..... Good god man! you sound like Tute. What the hell has happened to all those treasured fossils. You will need to explain the sudden shift dear boy....
You wrote this on the fly, didn't you. Or have you really been the metaphysical mufti theist all these years. That final line was just inserted as a blind to disguise the acceptance. Another wee game of you think that I think.
Hells teeth.... any day now we will have the final conversion.... oops... confession, that perhaps this planets inhabitants are all one and do act in unison... a kind of mufti version of a universal consciousness.
But nah... nah, nah, that would be pushing the envelope
Angels and Saints.... In deed!
Oh yeah BTW, I wrote/posted this on by/my own free will, I'm unsure how atheists would accomplish it.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Oct 29, 2018 4:49:50 GMT 10
All this FREE-WILL desertification (or is it: Dissertation?) is scary AND Pedro feels...disturbed by...Blast, HERE I go...AGAIN...DISTURBED!!! There is NO doubt, an Intellectually Active Senior CAN gather together so many torn strips of Spiritual Terminology and toss them into the boiling & bubbling Pot of a FREE-WILL MINESTRONE...to be served to the Intellectuals of the Past IT Final Retirement Village ! A M A Z I N G !! Padre Pedro AFTER having read a Spiritual Loaded Post...I feel that I am Highly Trained and ready to face the Members of the Cappuccino Time at the Thirroul Senior Cafe'!!
|
|
|
Post by qjumper on Oct 29, 2018 9:05:46 GMT 10
There is nothing (no action) that is free of consequences so the concept of FREE WILL is of course a nonsense.
FREE WILL has always been a cop out by worshipers for their God's not helping when someone makes the "shit hit the fan".
It is nothing more and nothing less.
|
|